Key Green provisions delayed to October 9 and beyond

Members of the House of Assembly will be spending their constituency and other allowances until after the next election as Bond Papers reported on 22 June 2007.

In addition, as The Telegram reported on Saturday, those members won't have to worry about accountability since the sections of the Green bill bringing the legislature under the province's access to information laws also won't take effect until October 9, 2007.

But even then members may not have to worry about the public discovering how they spent their allowances in the months leading up to the provincial election. Even on October 9, the access to information laws would not apply to the pre-election period. Outgoing speaker of the legislature Harvey Hodder told the Telegram:

"That has not been clarified," Hodder told The Telegram. "The intent of the legislation is that it would be on a go-forward basis."

A closer examination of the bill passed in the legislature in June 14 show that other key accountability provisions of the bill won't come into effect until October 9 or, in one case, August 2008.

The delayed provisions are:

1. October 9, 2007: Section 24, which provides a mechanism to deal with appealing expense claims that are rejected or that would allow members to obtain an opinion from the speaker on the permissibility of an expenditure before it is made.

2. August 31, 2008: Section 28(3)(l) that provides the clerk of the legislature, in his or her capacity as chief financial offer is responsible for "certifying to the commission as required that the House of Assembly and statutory offices have in place appropriate systems of internal control and that those systems are operating effectively".

Section 28(3)(h) as it relates to statutory offices is delayed until April 1, 2008. This section establishes the clerk is responsible for "authorizing and recording all financial commitments entered into on behalf of the House of Assembly and statutory offices."

In his report, Chief Justice Derek Green specifically notes a failures by the Internal Economy Commission and certain officials to certify compliance with established rules and procedures:

Over the years, the House and the IEC have repeatedly emphasized a commitment to the imperatives of transparency and accountability. Yet, as the forgoing indicates, there is reason for concern with respect to the manner in which the IEC and the administration of the House has handled its important obligations with respect to: compliance, reporting and public disclosure. [Emphasis added]

3. October 9, 2007: Section 31 requiring the clerk of the legislature to be accountable to the Public Accounts Committee of the House "for measures taken to organize the resources of the House of Assembly service to deliver the programs in compliance with established policies and procedures; measures taken to implement appropriate financial management policies; measures taken to maintain effective systems of internal control; certifications that are made under section 29; and performance of other specific duties assigned to him or her by or under this or another Act in relation to the administration of the House of Assembly service and the statutory offices."

That section also enables the clerk to seek advice from the deputy attorney general or the comptroller general in instances where a disagreement exists between the clerk and the Speaker on a matter of policy.

4. October 9, 2007: Sections 35 to 42 of the ethics and accountability section of the legislation that allow for the establishment of a code of conduct for members of the legislature, give a mechanism for lodging a a complaint against a member and resolving the complaint.

In recommending this section, Chief Justice Green noted:

In making this recommendation, I recognize that there are more elaborate mechanisms employed in some jurisdictions with respect to the way in which allegations of a breach of code of conduct may be investigated and enforcement action taken. I have declined to recommend a more elaborate scheme at the present time. This is partly because the provisions of Part II of the House of Assembly Act dealing with conflicts of interest of Members are not technically within the scope of my mandate and the whole area of the code of conduct, including conflict of interest, should be reviewed comprehensively. That would require a more detailed analysis than I was able to give to the matter for the purposes of this report. I regard the foregoing recommendation, therefore, as an interim measure, but an interim measure that should be proceeded with forthwith with a view to restoring public confidence. [Bold and italics added]

5. October 9, 2007: Section 53, which establishes clear a right of any person to seek a mandatory order directing "a member, the speaker, deputy speaker, clerk, clerk assistant or the commission" to observe or comply with a duty imposed under the Green Act.

Chief Justice Green described mandamus as another layer of accountability:

It is not unreasonable, therefore, that members of the public who become aware of a major failure to comply with a statutory duty should have an opportunity, out of sense of public duty, to seek enforcement of those duties through the courts where they perceive that others in the system are not taking appropriate enforcement action. [Italics added]

6. October 9, 2007: Section 67 which brings the House of Assembly - with certain specific exceptions - under the Access to Information and protection of Personal Privacy Act.

7. October 9, 2007: The Rules, contained in the schedule to the bill that among other things, prohibit members from spending public money on partisan activities or on gifts and donations, hold members personally liable for overspending and require members to keep records of spending.

Even the manner in which the Green bill was passed, along with its amendments delaying some provisions, repeated a pattern Green criticised severely. In a section of chapter four, titled "An ever-weakening legislative framework" Green described the unsatisfactory manner in which the members of the legislature amended the rules governing House operations:

When the IEC wished to change policy, it did so. If such policy was inconsistent with the rules, it changed the rules. If such policy was inconsistent with the legislation, the legislation was amended - and amended expeditiously. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act tended to be made in the last day or two of a session when efforts seemed to be focused on concluding business in order to close the House. From our review of Hansard, it appears the changes would be made with the pre-approval of all parties, minimal notice, minimal debate in the House and unanimous approval. [Emphasis added]

The reality is that the normal checks and balances that are inherent in an adversarial parliamentary system do not effectively operate where the subject under discussion directly engages the self-interest of all members regardless of political affiliation. Some mechanism must be found to improve the likelihood that important changes to the legislative framework involving MHA compensation and allowances will receive considered reflective attention in the House and cannot be pushed through without debate in the rush to bring a legislative session to a close.

When the bill was hastily passed on June 14, members of the legislature who spoke publicly left the clear impression that the entire bill was in effect immediately. In the wake of the first Bond Papers report, Deputy Premier Tom Rideout initially dismissed the matter as "poppycock". Later in the day, he admitted to reporters that the rules would come into effect on October 9.

He made no mention of other sections of the bill that would be delayed and offered no explanation beyond mentioning that implementation of some provisions required staff training and new software.

In addressing the issue of delayed implementation of the access to information provisions, Rideout said:"There was no recommendation (from) Green as to when it came into effect, so nobody, including myself, read anything into this...".

In fact, Recommendation 80 described the need to introduce the bill as soon as possible for debate and enactment with the attached schedule of rules being presented forthwith. "Forthwith" means "immediately; without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening."

In Rideout's view, by contrast, some provisions will come into effect today, while others will come tomorrow "and tomorrow is October 9". If tomorrow will not arrive until October 9, April 1 and, in one instance, August 31, one might wonder exactly when "today" is.

-srbp-

Telegram: Legislature exempt from FOI law until after election

The Telegram
p. A1

Legislature exempt from FOI law until after election
Quiet addition to Green report

Rob Antle
The Telegram

The House of Assembly has quietly exempted itself from the province's freedom of information laws until after the October general election.

And The Telegram has learned there is confusion over whether taxpayers will be able to access any House information generated prior to that Oct. 9 implementation date.

Chief Justice Derek Green recommended in his "Rebuilding Confidence" report that the House be covered by FOI laws.

Those laws allow members of the public to obtain government documents and information.

The legislature is currently exempt - a situation Green suggested played a contributing role in the constituency spending scandal.

It will remain that way for at least a few more months.

The delay in FOI access was added without fanfare to the text of Green's suggested legislation, passed June 14. There was no news release announcing it. And figuring it out requires stitching together a number of subsections of two pieces of law.

Government House Leader Tom Rideout defended the decision, and the transparency with which it was made.

Rideout characterized it as not being a delay at all, as Green did not cite a specific implementation date. The FOI decision was made in consultation with the chief justice, Rideout said.

He denied an inaccurate impression was left with the public, and said it was unnecessary issue a news release about the later date.

"There was no recommendation (from) Green as to when it came into effect, so nobody, including myself, read anything into this," Rideout said Friday.

"Since Green didn't say the act comes into effect today, we, in consultation with him, said what can come into effect today comes into effect today, what needs time to come into effect tomorrow comes into effect tomorrow, and tomorrow is Oct. 9, 2007."

Rideout said he thought everyone was aware of that date for certain elements of the Green report's implementation.

The chief justice was not available for comment Friday.

Here is how the FOI delay became law.

On June 14, the legislature unanimously passed Bill 33, the act implementing Green's stringent new accountability, ethics and spending rules for the House.

The delay is tucked away in Sec. 72 (2) (b) of Bill 33. It simply notes that Sec. 67 of the legislation will be put off until after Oct. 9.

Sec. 67 concerns amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Those sections of the existing FOI law deal with the public's right to access legislative documents.

It is unclear whether or not the FOI provisions will be retroactive.

Rideout said it is his understanding that they will.

But House Speaker Harvey Hodder suggested the new commission of politicians set up to govern House affairs will decide. "That has not been clarified," Hodder told The Telegram. "The intent of the legislation is that it would be on a go-forward basis."

When the new FOI law was brought into effect in 2005, however, it did apply retroactively.

But maybe not so for the House, the Speaker suggested. "To what extent it can be retroactive before Oct. 9, that has not been discussed in my presence," Hodder said.

The delay in FOI provisions is in addition to another last-second amendment that put off tough new spending rules for MHAs until after Oct. 9.

Internet blogger Ed Hollett unearthed the existence of that information two weeks ago.

There was also no news release announcing that delay.

Bill 33, including the amendments, whooshed through the House in less than two days, just before the legislature broke for the summer.

rantle@thetelegram.com

-srbp-

When will Danny start blogging?

The Governor General is already ahead of him.

-srbp-

SOL Day 12: Strawberry Fields Forever

Isn't it strange that in the middle of what is supposed to be a war between Danny Williams and Steve Harper, so many provincial cabinet ministers and wannabes are taking part in joint money announcements with the supposed enemy?

Strange isn't it?

Strange isn't that from the moment he was elected until the federal election in 2006, Danny Williams typically used the most vicious language to describe the federal government and its supposedly perfidious ways. Misrepresentations, distortions all were fair game.

Ottawa was pure evil.

But there seems to be something decidedly fake about Danny Williams and his reaction to the Equalization racket with Ottawa. Oh sure, he mouths a few words and every agrees it is a terrible slight to call the Prime Minister "Steve" - gimme a break, Simpson - but that more likely shows the generally vacuous nature of media commentary in the country.

Doesn't it?

In this the Summer of Love in Newfoundland and Labrador, it should surely be The Summer of Hell for Harper in Canada, with Danny Williams hitting every bar-b-que across the country telling people what an untrustworthy s--o-b that Steve guy is. That's the way you'd look to take out a federal politician, as Danny pledged to do repeatedly.

Pledged repeatedly, mind you.

Confirmed by Paul Oram that defeating Harper is government policy. If Oram says it, the talking point must be straight from Liz's Crackberry.

So where's the campaign exactly? Is it keeping the energy plan company?

And what's with all of these announcements with Loyola Hearn?

If the feds have doled out 32-odd million dollars, someone needs to total up the provincial share announced by this minister or that minister at the same event the federal cabinet minister attended right next to his provincial buddy.

Heck, the participation in events with Loyola Hearn must be officially sanctioned by the Premier's Office - Paul Oram took part in one.

The truth is, the whole War Against Steve is a sham. A farce. A put-on. A fake. A stunt conceived by people who spend too much time on their Crackberry.

A distraction.

Like announcing a lawsuit against the former director of the House of Assembly's financial operations the day after postponing implementation of the Green restrictions on House of Assembly spending.

Such convenient timing. People think the restrictions are in place today, but they don't realise today, as Tom Rideout seems to think, is actually tomorrow and tomorrow is October 9. And so while they are thinking the wrong thing let's launch a lawsuit - a civil suit - while the whole thing is under criminal investigation.

Looks like something is happening when in fact it isn't. no lawyer representing the poor sod at the centre of this political farce is going to let the civil suit proceed until the criminal stuff is done.

And a judge will agree.

Just like a former justice minister and attorney general, now the finance minister, could claim there would be swift action to recover all the money allegedly paid improperly to politicians. Then the lawyers asked for the documents to back the claim and the whole thing disappeared from public view until the week of the Green bill fiddling when suddenly it's the civil servant schmuck - not his political masters, any more - who is facing the law suit.

It's hard to keep track of the twists and turns of that story without being stoned. Imagine what it took to come up with it in the first place. You are either stoned or you are in government. The second one just feels like the first one sometimes.

But all that to one side. The reason Danny Williams is not really at war with Stephen Harper is that he knows one thing: if Nova Scotia gets a better deal, it automatically flows to Newfoundland and Labrador.

So the Summer of Love can roll along, including the summer of lovin' your supposed enemy while you both hand out cheques to the voters, man.

And the Green bill is there, dude, but not really. Chill, Rob. Have another brownie and share the rest with your friends in the press gallery. We just baked 'em on the Clerk's Table. Mace makes a cool whisk, man.

Anyone else got the munchies?

It's nothing to get hung about. The reporters are reporting the stuff they think is there. But it might not be, man. Might be the 'shrooms.

The whole province is living the anthem of the Summer of Love, just like 40 years ago:

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.
Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about.

-srbp-

Competence deficit the big one

St. John's city council has quite a few deficits.

There's the civility deficit that's been around as long as the current mayor has been serving on council.

There's the honesty deficit that afflicted at least one councillor.

Now Councillor Tom Hann is talking about a possible cash deficit on this year's budget. How dare Hann and his buddies talk about a cash shortfall then they brazenly hiked taxes last year?

If residents of the city took a little trip back in time to late last year though, they'd see that any deficit comes from the generally poor way this council has been running the city's financial affairs. To be fair, it's not just this crowd. It's successive councils going back two decades or more.

But lookit: here's just one way the city could save cash.

Consider for example the sports and entertainment fiasco know to some as the Keith Coombs Money Pit. A money-losing pig of an enterprise since its inception, the project was supposedly doing better this year. So much better in fact that council increased its subsidy to the facility by 50%.

If Hann and his fellow councilors want to fix the deficit, they can start by reducing the subsidy.

Since that subsidy is only a portion of the cash poured into the Coombs money pit each year, council needs to take an axe to its relationship with the problem-plagued facility. Create a new management structure that brings in private sector partners in a manner similar to Norsk Hydro and other Norwegian Crown corporations.

There should be no council staff or councillors on the new board. Not a one.

Give the new board simple instructions: make money or break even but don't expect a penny from city coffers ever again. If the thing sinks, then it sinks.

If the city actually got rid of its subsidy and other payments propping up Mile One this year, it would immediately go from a projected $2.0 million deficit to a $1.0 million surplus.

Just to be sure that everything is indeed clearly known and that the best decisions get made, let's have the province's Auditor General review the City's operations first. It's just the kind of fiscal inquiry the city desperately needs and it would give the residents of the capital city a good base to start from: accurate information for the first time in decades coming from City Hall on the city's financial state.

Mayor Andy Wells is adamantly opposed to such a thorough, impartial review, but then again this wouldn't be the first time Andy Wells has been dead wrong about something. Let's ignore his objections - specious as they usually are - and have the AG figure out what to do.

Given the latest revelation of financial problems at City Hall, it would appear that the real problem on council is a competence deficit. The only way we'll fix that is by pulling the covers off the place and seeing where the rot has set in.

Lord knows, the place looks rotten enough when taxes get hiked and the fat budget is once again heading for deficit.

-srbp-

SOL Day 10: Yet more money

It's the Summer of Love in Newfoundland and Labrador and the cash just keeps on flowing.

1. CNG and NLDG are contributing respectively $116,000 and $152,000 to the town of New-Wes-Valley to upgrade the local water supply.

2. Appleton will be getting new water storage tanks thanks in large part to cash from CNG and NLDG.

3. A heritage project in Elliston will get $230,00 from the supposedly feuding governments.

4. NLDG will spend $2.55 million on road work in InTrd minister Trevor Taylor's district. Nothing signals a pending election like the smell of paving tar.

That's four cash announcements on the Friday before a provincial government holiday weekend and it isn't even noon yet.

-srbp-

SOL Day 9: More money and photogenic turds

So much for this feud between Dan Williams and Steve Harper. When there's a provincial election election campaign underway and a federal one coming, the Connies and their provincial cousins can find all sorts of ways to help each other out.

1. Both Canada's New Government (CNG) and Newfoundland and Labrador's Dan Government (NLDG) invest $250,000 to help hike interest in an international trail along the Appalachians.

Get it? Hike? Trail? The word "hike" is even italicised in the news release head in case you didn't get the creative writing.

2. CNG and NLDG drop about $1.2 million between them into an aquaculture project on the South coast.

3. CNG and NLDG spend $3.0 million on an improved water supply for Harbour Breton.

4. Then CNG and NLDG announced opening of a heritage site in Harbour Breton completed with more than $3.5 million in federal and provincial cash.

5. Even the Premier's parliamentary assistant will be able to get in on the electioneering. The last SOL release for Thursday was an announcement of a photo op involving federal fish minister Loyola Hearn and the Premier's Open Line crackie, Paul Oram.

Oram and Hearn can be photographed at a municipal water and sewer project in Oram's district, on Friday at 1:30 PM.

In an election campaign, even the crap is apparently so potentially vote-worthy that a cabinet and a wannabe cabinet minister will pose for happy snaps with it.

-srbp-

Cameron inquiry to review health care PR

There's a brief post at Persuasion Business discussing two of the terms of reference for Madam Justice Margaret Cameron's inquiry into hormone receptor testing.

The first two posts on Persuasion Business include references to the hormone testing case and there'll be more to follow as the inquiry proceeds.

You can now keep track of the recent headlines at PB using the headline animator at the right. Just click on the animator to get the posts. You can also receive them by e-mail, for free, using the Feedburner subscription service. If you just like to click on your own, then you'll find a link in the Top O' The Pile section on the right hand menu of Sir Robert Bond Papers.

-srbp-

Sponsorship of Connie hypocrisy

From the Calgary Herald, news that more money was spent by Canada's New Harpocrisy on Canada Day celebrations in Quebec than in the rest of the country combined.

The bill for celebrating our birthday

Calgary Herald, July 1, 2007

OTTAWA - If today's Canada Day parties seem a bit more festive in Quebec, thank the federal government. Over half of all federal "Celebrate Canada" funding is directed to Quebec-based events, government records show.

More than $3.7 million will pay for flag-raisings, fireworks, face-painting and other projects across the province, accounting for 55 per cent of the funds channelled through Celebrate Canada.

In contrast, funding for national holiday events in the rest of the country totals just over $3 million.

Celebrate Canada was created to fund citizen-initiated events for Canada Day, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Multiculturalism Day and National Aboriginal Day. The Department of Canadian Heritage says Quebec receives a larger share of money for holiday celebrations because its provincial government doesn't fund Canada Day events.

The bulk of money goes to Quebec's Canada Day organizing committee, which is set to receive $3.2 million for events in Montreal and 27 other municipalities around the province in 2007-08. The theme of the events this year is "Tip of the Hat to the Environment."

The organizing committee in Alberta, meanwhile, will receive $50,000 in federal funds. Ontario's committee will get $100,000 and British Columbia's $190,000, according to figures released by Canadian Heritage.

- - -

Canada Day funding by province

Quebec $3,690,786
Ontario $1,013,500
British Columbia $491,250
Alberta $310,250
Manitoba $211,000
Saskatchewan $174,294
Nova Scotia $173,250
New Brunswick $172,000
Newfoundland & Labrador $148,000
Prince Edward Island $123,000
Yukon $87,000
Northwest Territories $76,650
Nunavut $64,300

TOTAL $6,735,280

-srbp-

Bad timing? No. Just bad Layton policy

Forget the appalling timing of Jack Layton falsely accusing NATO forces of indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians on the same day that terrorists killed six Canadian soldiers and their Afghan interpreter.

No.

Focus instead on Layton's accusation.

He could have focused on the real problem, namely the terrorists. It's not like he used to criticize the terrorists whose suicide bombers slaughtered more innocent Afghan civilians than Canadian soldiers.

Or it's not like Jack criticized the terrorists who deliberately infiltrated Afghan villages when attacking NATO forces just so that they could produce the Afghan civilian deaths Layton is concerned about.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is rightly criticizing NATO forces but unlike Layton, Karzai is not crassly politicking over the bodies of the dead. Karzai doesn't want the Taliban to win. The same can't necessarily be said of Layton.

And before the e-mails and comments come from NDP supporters taking exception to pointing out the appalling comments Layton made, consider Layton's own releases and their shameless partisan appeal.

From the one on Afghan casualties:

In the upcoming by-elections, voters will finally have an opportunity to have their say on Canada’s involvement in this mission.

The choice is clear.

They can vote for parties that got us into this mission, extended this mission, or who want it to go on another two years – or they can vote for the NDP.

And then from the release issued an hour later on the deaths of six Canadian soldiers:

Canadian soldiers never die in vain when they are killed in the line of duty. All Canadian soldiers deserve our utmost respect for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Yeah, Jack, they do die in vain. Every single time a Canadian politician issues a pair of releases like these.

-srbp-

Aussie oil field approved

BHP Billiton announced today that it will be developed an oil field offshore western Australia.

Development cost is estimated at slightly less than US$2.0 billion. The field - called Pyrenees - holds an estimated 120 million barrels of recoverable oil. It will be developed using a floating production,storage and offloading vessel (FPSO). The field has an estimated lifespan of 25 years, based on production of 96K barrels per day.

Note that Pyrenees was discovered in 2003 and that with a development decision taken in 2007, the field will achieve first oil in 2010.

Time from discovery to production is seven years.

-srbp-

SOL, Day 8: More money from Ottawa

Who says the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the federal Connies are on the outs?

Pish posh old boy.

Not when there's an election to be won.

There's transportation infrastructure money to be announced in Corner Brook on July 4. The feds will be represented by Loyola Hearn, fish minister and in this case stand-in for Lawrence Cannon. Apparently, Fabian Manning - who has been known to take Cannon's seat in the Commons from time to time - was unavailable for this guest shot.

The province won't be represented by provincial transportation minister John Hickey or even the alternate minister of transportation.

Nope. The provincial government will be represented by finance minister Tom Marshall, whose district just happens to be getting the cash.

They'll both be accompanied by the mayor of Corner Brook. Now is Charles Pender thinking of leaping to provincial politics this fall, alongside former Reform/Alliance-dallier and former Liberal candidate wannabe Steve Kent and how many other municipal councillors and mayors eager for an MHAs salary?

Time will tell.

But hey, it's the Summer of Love.

Even supposedly mortal enemies can kiss and make up when there are votes to be courted with public cash.

-srbp-

Persuasion Business Update

A discussion of reputation, titled "Actions speak louder than words", the latest post at Persuasion Business.

-srbp-

The Real Change: 1991 and changed provincial government attitudes

Think profits, Wells urges Newfoundland
The Ottawa Citizen.
Sep 11, 1991
Page. D.3

ST. JOHN'S (CP) _ Newfoundlanders have to start thinking more about profits and less about handouts if they're ever going to catch up with other Canadians, Premier Clyde Wells said Tuesday.

''We have to recognize that profit is not a dirty word,'' Wells said after releasing a discussion paper his government is using to develop an economic strategy for the country's poorest province.

''Our whole approach to being jealous or envious of somebody or feeling somebody's made too much has got to change. We've got to think in terms of providing opportunities for our people to increase their wealth.''

The governing Liberals are facing an age-old problem - diversifying Newfoundland's economy to make it more self-reliant in the face of an ailing fishery and a far-flung population.

But there's new urgency to the task, said Wells, given lower-than-expected transfer payments from the federal government in recent years.

''Our future is essentially at stake,'' said Wells. ''We're at the end. The federal government can't go much further.

''We cannot continue to prop up any fishing businesses that, in the end, do not contribute to the economy.''

The 65-page consultation report suggests some means of spurring growth, including tax breaks for investors and foreign trade zones for Newfoundland ports of entry where goods may enter and leave without paying duty.

The report will be used to solicit public input this fall and help shape a final plan - due early next year - to enliven the province's fortunes.

It was immediately slammed by Opposition members as a rehash of old ideas and a breach of Wells's 1989 election promise to put an economic recovery plan in place right away.

''Nothing new is happening at all,'' said Tory Leader Tom Rideout, who is stepping down this week. ''We're going back over the same territory . . . completed six years ago.''

Wells brushed off criticism, saying it's a new approach that relies heavily on the public and will serve the province for decades down the road.

Analysts have painted a rosy picture of Newfoundland's economy this year, mostly becuase of the giant Hibernia offshore oil project.

But Wells said it will likely take some 25 years of staying several percentage points ahead of the country's growth in gross domestic product before Newfoundland reaches the national average.

''The most we could do is put us on that road and have us well along the road,'' said Wells.

Some good fortune could cut down on that time-frame, including more oil ventures and signing a deal with Quebec to develop hydroelectric power on the lower Churchill River. A resurgence of dwindling cod stocks would also help recovery.

-srbp-

Plus ca change: 1987 version

First there was 30 years ago.

How about 20 years ago?

Province seeks focus for action
Financial Post
Jun 1, 1987
p. 16

Regional development programs here, as elsewhere, suffer from lack of focus.

Provincial officials complain they can't plan development properly because there is little co-ordination in Ottawa of the many federal aid programs (although there is a local federal co- ordinator). In fact, each program has to be dealt with separately.

It is possible this problem will disappear with creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which is expected to be announced by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney this week. This agency will likely bring most federal-originating regional development programs in the Atlantic provinces under one authority, perhaps a cabinet minister. That should clear up some confusion.

The provincial government itself is not innocent of confusion. Its departments sometimes work at odds with one another, following different ideologies (some favor co-operatives, some don't) and different game plans. The province has never provided an overall development plan to Ottawa, with the possible exception of "managing our resources," which ended in 1985.

Disdainful treatment

In Newfoundland's case, however, there are mitigating circumstances. The province has a unique culture and a distinctive economic history, but it is not master in its own house.

Its people complain the province is treated with disdain by the federal system and by some provinces. The reasons, they say, are: the smallness of Newfoundland's population (580,000), its dependence on Ottawa (49% of revenues come from this source), and its relative lack of power in the House of Commons (seven seats out of 282).

In addition, the province has little or no control over three major resources:

- Fisheries, which accounted for 44% of the average annual employment in the goods producing sector in 1986, are a federal responsibility.

Recently, Ottawa conceded to France various fishing rights off Newfoundland and Labrador, at the expense of Newfoundland fishermen. The idea was to bring France to the table over fishing rights in the disputed St. Pierre and Miquelon waters.

Newfoundland, which had attended Canada-France negotiations for eight years, was excluded from the key meeting in which the concessions were given.

- Offshore oil is governed jointly by Canada and Newfoundland under the 1985 Atlantic Accord. But when federal Energy Minister Marcel Masse came to St. John's recently to announce PetroCanada's intention to drill its Terra Nova field, he did not feel it was necessary to inform Newfoundland in advance.

- Hydroelectric generation in Labrador is held up indefinitely because Quebec will not allow Newfoundland to send power through Quebec's grid to U.S. markets. As a result, a Lower Churchill River generating facility is not feasible.

Newfoundlanders ask why gasoline can be transported interprovincially in road tankers, and natural gas can travel the TransCanada PipeLine, but electricity can't move interprovincially without the provinces' consent.

In the past 13 years, Newfoundland has been forced to spend $800 million on thermal plants and small, expensive hydro generators. As a result, the price of its electricity is the second highest in Canada (after Prince Edward Island). The high cost of power is one deterrent to badly needed economic growth.

Newfoundland has been the helpless victim of outside economic forces for generations. The growth of technology, for example, has lured Newfoundlanders into wanting higher incomes in order to buy glamorous cars and televisions. At the same time, it has robbed them of jobs.

Newfoundland fishermen no longer make their own nets and hardware, but import plastic ones manufactured "from away." Mechanical tree harvesters, built on the mainland with non- Newfoundland labor, have replaced teams of men with axes.

The statistics tell a grim tale. In 1987, Newfoundland is in much the same condition relative to Canada as it was when it joined Confederation in 1949.

In the past 20 years, the gap in personal income per capita between Newfoundland and Ontario hasn't changed much (see chart). Official unemployment statistics are bad enough (see chart) but if discouraged workers are included, the jobless rate is about 33%.

Low incomes and high unemployment generate lower tax revenue for the provincial government. Newfoundland tries to compensate through its retail sales tax, at 12% the highest in Canada. That tax generates $436 million, 37% of provincial revenues. (In comparison, Ontario's 7% tax produces $5.4 billion, 19% of provincial revenues.)

Newfoundland's tax base is so poor, its revenues have to be matched almost dollar for dollar by Ottawa, which in 1986-87 is expected to provide $1.1 billion.

However, Newfoundlanders feel such huge payments are not less than their due; they see them as returning the federal taxes paid on the large quantities of mainland goods sold in the province.

-srbp-

The Persuasion Business: Actions speak louder than words

If public relations is fundamentally about relationships, there are two words that are crucial to any relationship: reputation and credibility.

The two are linked, but let's take a look at reputation.

Reputation is an attitude held by an individual about another individual or an organization. An attitudes is set of beliefs, a sets of feelings. It will have positive and negative qualities: good versus bad, for example.

Attitudes are important because at some point they will drive or influence behaviour.

Behaviour is important because, at some point, the behaviour contained in our definitions of public relations is support.

If that sounds like your last undergraduate course in psychology or in political science, then don't be surprised. We are talking about human interactions - relationships between and among human groups.

While we all can have and likely have had short-term relationships, for most of us relationships tend to last over a long time. Some are constantly important, like say a relationship within a family. Others are intermittent, becoming important at some points in life while being in the background during other times. Inherently though, relationships tend to last in one form or another over a long time.

Relationships - like attitudes - are therefore likely to be dynamic. That is, they are likely to change over time based on any of a number of factors.

In another post, we'll discuss attitudes and behaviour in greater depth, but at this point let's stick with the catch-all term reputation and the connection to behaviour.

Attitudes are linked to behaviour in competitive situations, like the choice between one bottle of soft drink or another. Most of us are so familiar with these ideas that they seem obvious. But what about in a monopoly, like health care?

In the example used in the first post, we discussed at some length a current problem facing a health authority involving problems with important medical testing and public disclosure of information. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the health authority is a monopoly or part of a larger monopoly. If someone gets sick in eastern Newfoundland, and, like most of us, lacks the money to jet off to some other part of North America for care, it's not exactly like he or she can go to another health care provider to show displeasure in the way the testing issue was handled.

Absolutely correct.

But...

This is a democracy and health care is provided from public funds controlled by politicians who periodically have to go to the polls. Those politicians need votes and those votes are held by people who will need health care at some point. If you doubt the connection, consider the 1997 federal election results in Newfoundland and Labrador. As much as anything else they were driven by public concerns over access to health care.

Now health care is entirely a provincial responsibility in Canada, but that didn't stop voters from making health care a major issue. The election results, translated into provincial votes by the nervous political operatives sent a disconcerting message to the provincial government. A provincial health minister was replaced. New funding turned up. Government organized a forum to discuss the issue and propose solutions. It was all very public and very obvious.

The problem didn't go away, although there was a decline in the very vocal criticisms of the health care system. Flip ahead to January 1999. Brian Tobin went to the polls looking for a second majority and his campaign launched on the heady promise of economic prosperity from offshore oil and the Lower Churchill. Everyone else was talking health care. Major shift in campaign communications including the hasty production of new television commercials highlighting social programs, especially health care.

Fast forward to 2007, another election year. Questions about breast cancer screening led to the appointment of a public inquiry headed by no less an authority than the most senior justice of the Court of Appeal (in terms of years on the bench) , the highest court in the province. In an unrelated matter that cropped up at the same time, health officials were given a mere two weeks to re-evaluate almost 6,000 radiology reports when concerns were raised about the competence of a radiologist at a rural hospital.

To forestall unwelcome voter behaviour - i.e. voting for the Other Guys - the governing party took swift action.

Action.

Implicitly, the politicians involved knew that attitudes wouldn't be adjusted merely by words. It wasn't good enough to say that things were fixed. Well, they tried that initially, along with some actions that likely dealt with the entire matter as far as the health care authority was concerned.

The problem was that the important attitudes aren't those of the senior managers of the authority. They like themselves anyway. Ask any of them how they do their jobs and they will tell you what a marvellous job they do, working long hours for little pay.

The problem lay in the simple fact that the attitudes that were important were patient attitudes. Those attitudes shifted, as we noted before, once it appeared that the health authorities had held back important information. More action - very obvious action - was needed.

Actions speak louder than mere words, especially when it comes to influencing behaviour.

Next time we'll look at credibility and what happens in the gap between what you say and what you do.

- srbp -

Lower Churchill by undersea cable: the 1978 view

This piece might be from the Globe and Mail 30 years ago, but it highlights so much about the megaprojects for Gull Island and Muskrat Falls in Labrador.

First of all, the story by Ralph Surette starts out noting that Gull island is a potential source of power. It still is. Potential. Not imminent. Potential. The project won't change status until building starts and building won't start until the financing is secured and the financing won't be secured with power purchase agreements.

Second of all, note the comments from then-chairman and chief executive Vic Young on the undersea route. Technically feasible? No question. The problem is capital and maintenance costs that would make the power "cost about twice what it would if brought down overland."

It's always interesting to go back into the files and discover how much things haven't changed. Oh yeah. That's another thing. Three decades ago, the Premier of the day and the minister of mines and energy, along with the Hydro executives would have spoken in glowing terms about the development they expected to take place very shortly.

Experience is what makes each of us cautiously optimistic about life and its promises. Optimistic, for sure, but tempered by what has occurred.

Buchanan has a lot to learn before selling hydro power
Ralph Surette
Globe and Mail
Nov 25, 1978
P.8

Halifax NS -- BY RALPH SURETTE HALIFAX Gull Island is nothing more than a potential hydroelectric power site on the lower Churchill River in faraway Labrador. But Nova Scotia Premier John Buchanan sees it as tantalizingly close and the answer to the province's long-term electricity problems.

Mr. Buchanan had big things in mind for Gull Island when he delivered one of his first major policy speeches a few weeks ago in the United States, as many Canadian politicians have a habit of doing. He told his audience in Portland, Me., that the Atlantic region had a potential power surplus it could sell to New England. He mentioned coal-powered electricity in Nova Scotia, nuclear power in New Brunswick, Fundy tidal power and Gull Island.

NOVA SCOTIA

In order to supply both Nova Scotia's long-term needs and be sold in surplus to the United States, Mr. Buchanan saw this Labrador power coming down via submarine cable from Newfoundland to Cape Breton.

But he made the slight oversight of not consulting Newfoundland. He was gently but quickly reminded by Newfoundland energy officials of the difficulties involved in moving Gull Island power anywhere, let alone to Nova Scotia.

For one thing, according to Vic Young, president of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the 77-mile cable across the Cabot Strait is an extremely poor prospect. Although a study two years ago stated it was technically possible, its capital and maintenance costs would be enormous. The electricity delivered would cost about twice what it would if brought down overland.

But the overland route through Quebec has its own set of problems. Newfoundland wants to negotiate a right of way through Quebec. Quebec insists on maintaining the present system in which Quebec would simply buy power at the Newfoundland border and resell it at its other borders at a profit.

The two provinces have been negotiating for a year on the matter. Negotiations are presumably not helped by the fight between the two provinces over electricity from the upper Churchill River. Newfoundland has taken Quebec to court for the right to recall some Churchill Falls power for its own needs. The whole block now is sold to Quebec under fixed contract.

Further, Mr. Young does not see Gull Island, with its 1,800 megawatts of potential power, serving anyone's long-term needs except those of Newfoundland. The power, he says, would be exported only until such time as Newfoundland needs it.

Mr. Buchanan first expected the yet-to-be-created Maritimes Energy Corporation (MEC) could be expanded to include Newfoundland and that this corporation could take a leading role in developing Gull Island.

However, after a round of talks with the federal Government, the premier has settled for the idea that the MEC should purchase Labrador power and nothing more. Meanwhile, Newfoundland and the federal Government are expected to announce formation of a new corporation within the next few weeks to begin the task of developing the Gull Island site.

The problems with delivery have not been ironed out. If Gull Island electricity ever reaches Nova Scotia, chances are it will be neither cheap nor the answer to Nova Scotia's energy problems. But it has to get here first, and Mr. Buchanan may have long since come and gone as premier by then.

-srbp-

It's the bit they don't say that kills you

There's yet another piece on Newfoundland and Labrador in the Globe. Today's topic is the Lower Churchill project, which may become part of the Summer of Love election campaign just as it was in 1998 under Brian Tobin.

But here's a comment from PetroNewf chief executive Ed Martin that leaps out for the unstated bit:

"But with respect to the maritime route, it is a viable alternative [to shipping power overland through Quebec]. It's a hands-down viable alternative from a technical perspective."

Technically, engineers can put the proverbial arse back in the proverbial cat.

Technically, engineers can run a single strand thinner than human hair around the globe at the equator and tie a knot in it with tweezers, via remote control from the moon, while blind folded and being distracted by the voice of Lucy Liu's efficiency expert in the original Charlie's Angels (it's a nerd thing).

But is it viable financially?

That's where the answer typically comes up with a simple and emphatic "No!"

200 megawatts shipped all the way from Labrador to Rhode Island? Ya gotta be kidding.

The cost of the land lines down through New Brunswick, Maine and into Massachusetts alone would make the thing dodgy. Add in the underwater cabling to both the island of this province and to the mainland and you have a pretty costly venture.

All of that will be borne, supposedly, by a block of power that is actually less than the power block used annually by two industrial projects in western Labrador.

Now for his part the Premier calls this Rhode Island thing "very,very" crucial and "very, very" something else. When politicians use words like "very" and then use them repeatedly in relation to the same thing (always positive), you can usually be concerned that there is more than a little exaggeration on the go.

It's a verbal nose pull.

And so is Ed Martin's emphasis on the technical feasible of the sub-sea route.

The real question is whether it will be financially viable.

And that's not a poser for engineers.

-srbp-

Cooke passes Fortune; FFAW implicated

From CBC News:

A New Brunswick aquaculture company has decided not to process farmed salmon in a southern Newfoundland community this fall, dashing the hopes of workers whose plant has been idle for almost three years.

Cooke Aquaculture cited a number of reasons — including uncertainty over the future role of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union in the workplace — for deciding to process salmon outside of Fortune.

-srbp-

Proud to be Canadian

Yeah I am.

There are a bunch of reasons, none of which are really relevant because this is about other people who make me proud to be a Newfoundlander and proud to be a Canada. I don't see any contradiction in that because my definition of who I am as a person and who my people are is big enough to incorporate diversity. It isn't diverse enough though to include the sort of attitudes discussed in this piece at Offal News since fundamentally, I never felt so grossly insecure and afraid that I had to accept opinions and ideas only from pur laine Newfoundlanders.

Anyway, this post by Craig Welsh, led to a post by his buddy Dups who, six years ago became a Canadian citizen. Check the link to a piece for CBC Craig did about Dups.

On some level it reminds of me of a buddy of mine from years ago at university. He and his family came to Canada from Vietnam in the late 1970s. His family had earlier - 1954 to be exact - left their home in Hanoi to live in Saigon. April 1975 and they were looking to shift again, and decidedly not by choice.

Both his parents were well educated but they couldn't immediately find jobs in Canada of the type that should have had and like they'd had a home. Still, they persevered, put the children through university and, like my buddy, they are all now doing extremely well for themselves in different parts of the world.

Other buddies of mine from those days, with far less dramatic stories are doing very well for themselves both here in Newfoundland and Labrador or wherever they are. They don't whine about wanting to come home or look for simplistic excuses for things. Frankly they don't whine period, although, like any other normal human beings they do have their share of rants and complaints about banks and schools and taxes.

On this holiday Monday, the day after Canada Day, and thinking about people like Dups or Quoc Pham, stuff like this just seems more intensely like a pile of crap than it did on first reading.

And stuff like this commentary by Michael Temelini seems to epitomize the word "superficial." The problem with superficial commentaries - like Temelini's - is that they mistake a relatively small number of chronic moaners for a broadly based movement. The problem with superficial commentaries is that they consistently display a stupefying ignorance both of Canadian history and of the history of Newfoundland and Labrador Temelini presumes to describe.

Plenty of mainlanders and other come-from-aways have tackled local history with vigor and insight. Temelini isn't one of them and if he keeps going on the road he is going, superficial will be the politest word for what he does.

The problem with superficial commentaries - like Temelini's and that of mainlanders who take a sip at the Ship and then know-it-all - is that they derive their views from a ridiculously small and ridiculously biased sample.

And people like the famous Townie bastard? Or Dups? Or Dean? Or Ray or Quoc?

Superficial isn't a word you'd ever use to describe either of them.

-srbp-

Last month in history

Yeah.

It was that long ago.

June 1987 and Clyde Wells took on the then-thankless task of leading the provincial Liberal Party.

And this snapshot from history is brought to you by Offal News, complete with a photograph of a bunch of people on the steps of Confederation Building. You may recognize some of them.

-srbp-

Stimulus - response

This editorial from the Telegram on June 28 turns up in the Toronto Star on July 2.

Premier Danny Williams likes to throw out these one liners that are essentially meaningless like musing about taking away parliamentary immunity.

In this case it's quipping about Newfoundland and Labrador joining the United States. It's not something he has thought through.

But here's the thing, much like Brian Tobin, Williams knows how to play the mainland media - and some local media - like they were dogs and he was a freakin' one-man Pavlovian handbell choir.

He's a master at it.

And the dog's keep drooling.

And while they are drooling, they can't look at other issues they should be looking at.

Funny thing is, it's not like the media in Newfoundland and Labrador haven't heard a recent Premier tinkle a bell for them on a regular basis so much so that you think they'd be wise to ploy.

The mainlanders can be excused for indulging the theatrics for threatrics' sake.

The local guys?

A bit of a puzzler actually since they actually manage to figure out - sadly after the fact - that they've been tinkled.

-srbp-

The Persuasion Business: What the heck is public relations?

In 1999, I headed up the public affairs section of the Department of National Defence task force in Newfoundland and Labrador that would co-ordinate any military assistance to the provincial government in the event of problems caused by the supposed Y2K flaw in some computer programs.

We planned and trained nationally, regionally and finally at the provincial level. The provincial exercise took place on a weekend in the fall of 1999. All key staff members spent the weekend running an operations centre exactly as we would if needed.

The daily routine began with the commander's daily briefing, usually at seven o'clock in the morning. All department heads gave a summary of the previous day's activities, forecast what was coming and highlighted any issues that might need the commander's personal attention.

After each such briefing, known informally as morning prayers, the department heads usually grabbed a quick breakfast before beginning their shift. That first morning, a couple of my colleagues separately took me to one side to ask a simple question: "Is that what you do?"

"Yes", I replied, at first not quite sure what was coming next. I had given the commander an overview of attitudes in the key audiences we would be dealing with: the federal and provincial governments, views of key politicians at both levels of government, the news media and specific reporters, the public in affected areas, and internally among soldiers. Only after ensuring The Boss was thoroughly familiar with the situation did I give him what literally amounted to a 30 second discussion of my section's planned activities.

He didn't need more. In all the years I had worked for this individual, he had only wanted to focus on issues that might require his attention; he trusted the staff he had picked to run the show. The Boss wanted the lay of the land and any key ideas he'd need to put across. He wanted to have a good feel for specific people he would be dealing with. Everything else was ours to handle as department heads in co-operation with each other and with decision makers inside and outside our organization.

My whole briefing had taken only about 10 minutes.

As I looked at my colleagues, I slowly started to understand their question and their expressions of discovery. One of them, a professional with considerable experience throughout the Canadian Forces and the department including tours overseas on major operations, said he had never seen a briefing like it before from a public affairs officer.

He was used to public affairs (public relations) being all about dealing with news media. There were a certain number of media calls. We handled this many interviews. There is a news conference at such and such a time. The other stuff - the analysis - was a revelation to him.

His revelation was less a revelation to me as a reminder.

Most people don't understand what public relations is all about.

They think it is just about dealing with news media. They think of it as publicity. They think it is part of marketing.

It is all of that, on some level, but it is really so much more.

Public relations is the management function that plans, co-ordinates and executes communications efforts with people who are interested in what an organization is doing, in order to gain and maintain their support for the organization.

That's a definition I work with but there are others.

The Canadian Public Relations Society defines public relations as "the management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or organization with the public interest, and plans and executes a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance."

A lengthier definition holds that public relations "is the distinctive management function which:

• helps establish and maintain mutual lines of communication understanding, acceptance and co-operation between an organization and its publics;
• involves the management of problems and issues;
• defines and emphasizes the responsibility of management to serve the public interest;
• helps management to keep abreast of and to serve the public interest effectively, serving as an early warning system to help anticipate trends; and,
• uses research and sound, ethical communications as its practical tools."

Take either definition and you have a good idea of what a public relations professional does.

One of the most important common features of each of those definition is the word "management".

With only a small amount of preparation, anybody can handle media telephone inquiries. In many organizations, including public relations departments in any company or government office, the business of talking a telephone call, arranging an interview, sending out information or even issuing a news release or holding a press conference can be handled by the literally thousands of competent administrative people. Heck, software programs these days come with template "press" releases and there's even a for dummies book on public relations.

The real challenging in public relations is managing. It is about planning, co-ordinating, leading, organizing and budgeting. It is about deciding and making the right decision inevitably takes training coupled with experience and judgement. Not everyone can do that.

One could say that a public relations practitioner helps decide who says what to whom, where, when, why and how.

If you take a closer look at those definitions a few simple ideas leap out.

First, communication is a two-way street. It involves sending a message and receiving one. The sending bit is perhaps the easiest of all. Most people figure that part out just by the action involved in sending out a news release.

But receiving? There is always feedback from people interested in what an organization is doing. Sometimes that feedback is a clue to something elsewhere in the organization that needs fixing. Sometimes that feedback isn't what the senior managers don't want to hear, but it is very important that they do. That's where public relations comes in.

Second - and related to that feedback thing - public relations often involves change in some way. Sometimes an organization has to communicate about change, like closing a business. Sometimes, the change comes as feedback from disgruntled employees or voters.

Third, public relations connects an organization with the public interest. That isn't just the interest of the public as a politician or public servant might look at it. Sometimes it is public interest in the sense of the greater good, but public interest may mean the benefit of a particular group.

Think about a health care administration. Its core business is providing health care needed by the people within its geographical area. Their interest - as a public - is getting the care they need when they need it. Seems obvious, right? Well, what happens when that care isn't what they want or need or, in some instances, what can actually be delivered within the budget provided by a public system?

Interests may clash, but the effective management of communication is supposed to help resolve those sorts of conflicts. Public relations involves establishing and maintaining "mutual lines of communication, understanding, acceptance and co-operation." That health administration needs to give people realistic information about its programs. its needs to know if its services are being received and when there might be a budget issue, people may need to understand why some programs are expanding while others, like say their local clinic, is having its hours cut or is being closed.

In a more concrete example, look at the recent controversy involving one health authority and breast cancer screening. Aside from the problem with faulty testing - bad enough as it is - cancer patients and their families were likely most concerned to know how big the problem was. Did it involve me or my wife or mother? The next most important thing to know was what was being done about it. How is the health authority dealing with the problem and doing what it is supposed to do: deliver the best possible care?

take it from a slightly different angle and you can see this idea of public relations as well. Those patients are ultimately responsible for their own care and they can't make proper decisions if they don't have all the information. They depend on the relationship they have not just with the health professionals but with the entire organization to help them deal with their illness. Holding back vital information erodes the relationship between the care givers and the people needing care.

On a wider level, though, what seemed like a small decision to deal with a handful of patients, ultimately affected a bunch of others. People who would never even think about breast cancer screening personally had to wonder what other tests for other diseases might be buggered up. Then comes the real acid for the relationship: what else haven't they been told.

Once the story hit news media, the problem became not just in the relationship between the health authority and its patients (and their lawyers), it became a gigantic problem in the relationship between those patients, as voters, and the politicians who run the whole government. Patients discovered that three successive health ministers had been briefed on the whole thing - including withholding some information the non-disclosure apparently - and did...nothing.

In the whole business of dealing with the damage, another entirely separate issue was dragged in. At a news conference to announce an inquiry into the entire breast cancer business, someone decided to do two things. First he or she decided to delay the news conference. Reporters coming together at lunch hour for one announcement were left cooling their heels for no obvious reason.

Second, that same person decided to stick the head of the local health authority in front of a microphone to announce that a radiologist had been suspended because of possible problems with his diagnostic ability. Remember the bit about other tests? Initial reports noted that radiology involves mammograms. As anyone over the age of 18 likely knows, are tests to screen for, you guessed it, breast cancer. Imagine the reaction.

Even though this radiologist had not performed mammograms - information correctly reported in subsequent days - the decision to announce this separate issue in the way it was announced linked one crisis directly to another issue and thereby magnified the whole thing to another level.

Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow, indeed. Sometimes they fall on your head. Sometimes people wind up standing under a gigantic tree as it crashes from cuts they made to it.

Lots of information was handed out in this case, both initially and subsequently, but some crucial information - crucial as the patients saw it - was held back. The decision to hold that information back was taken by the senior-most levels of health care management and may have been done for what they took to be good corporate reasons. The communications people may well have advised a wider disclosure but as subsequent reports said, the information was held back based on legal advice.

Now in due course, we'll talk about the lawyer-public relations challenge, but think about that whole issue from a pure public relations perspective and you'll see the importance of effective public relations management. If you want people to support you, they have to know what you are doing. If you don't tell them, they can't know and, almost inevitably, they won't be overly supportive of what you are trying to do.

Get caught holding back or being thought of as holding back and support crumbles. Confidence erodes and, as the case turned out, the bosses of the bosses who held decided to hold back the information get more than a little annoyed or - when they join in the bad decisions - get caught up in a maelstrom of public concern.

No one likes unhappy people - disgruntled publics - especially politicians. As the case of breast cancer screening shows, badly handled public relations decisions - not necessarily made with the advice of public relations practitioners, by the way - can make a bad situation much worse. in fact, take a look at what happened compared to say the CPRS definition of public relations. How many of those key ideas got trashed?

When you get right down to it, public relations is essentially about relationships. So, against that background, next time we'll look at some simple ideas that underpin effective relationships, I mean, effective public relations:

Reputation and credibility.

- srbp -

The Persuasion Business

At the mid-point in the year, your humble e-scribbler has started a new blog dedicated solely to public relations.

They say you should write about what you know.

This is what I know.

I've been doing it professionally for the past 18 years.

The title - The Persuasion Business - is a tip of the hat to an old friend, a former barrister who once joked that we were both in the persuasion business.

He persuaded judges and juries of 12 and operated in a more or less orderly little world. My court was a little more unruly and involved many more people.

The first post is actually a revised version of one originally posted at Bond Papers in August 2005. It was supposed to be the first of a news series but the series never happened.

Now is the time to start not just a series but a whole new space devoted to public relations. I added some new observations using a recent, local case but essentially the core point of the piece remains the same. It's a good start to appreciating public relations and if Persuasion Business can help people get a better understanding of the profession then it will have accomplished its purpose.

If you like Bond Papers, you should find Persuasion Business equally provocative, although in not the same way. Many of the themes and ideas will likely be familiar: one of the underpinnings of Bond has been a look at local public issues from a public relations perspective. If they weren't readily apparent at Bond, then with any luck and a certain measure of skill, they will be at PB.

-srbp-

Why not inspect Andy, Doc, Keith and Ron while they're at it?

Municipal affairs minister Jack Byrne announced today that an inspector will be sent into the town of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's "to assess the conduct of the councilors and senior officers to determine if the business of the town is being negatively impacted by the conduct of any or all individuals...".

According to Byrne, "this is a necessary step to restore confidence and order in the municipality of Portugal Cove–St. Philip’s."

So why the heck hasn't Byrne sent an entire squad of inspectors to St. John's city council to sort out what must surely be one of the most dysfunctional crowd of municipal politicians outside of Michael J. Fox's old sitcom?

-srbp-

SOL Day 4: Dueling Tax cuts

One day after the Liberals announced their election tax cut, and,

one day after the Progressive Conservatives deployed their Pitcher Plants to every VOCM call-in show around to criticise the foolishness of tax cuts,

the party currently running the province - guess which one it is - issued this news release praising tax cuts contained in their election budget.

Apparently, the plants saw no problem with their team's tax cuts, while other peoples' tax cuts were irresponsible.

Logic apparently wasn't in the e-mails they received from Plant Central.

-srbp-

SOL Day 4: Airport!

Nain will get an airport apparently.

Details are sketchy but CBC is reporting that transportation minister John Hickey told an audience in Goose Bay on Wednesday that the provincial government would be building a new airport in Nain.

To play such a big card so early on suggests either that the two Liberal seats in Labrador are a major target for the Progressive Conservatives or John Hickey is feeling a bit uneasy in his own backyard.

-srbp-

SOL, Day 3: the Liberals join in

Liberal leader Gerry Reid announced today that a Liberal government will cut taxes by $100 million.

The cuts would include a drop in gasoline tax from the current 16.5% to 12%, an elimination of the 15% tax on insurance and a cut in motor vehicle registration from $180 to $140 annually.

-srbp-

NL Premiers tend to resign in January

From youtube, this clip posted by someone with an interesting collection of political television clips.

Listen closely to Frank Moores' comments on how times were supposed to have changed by the time he left office. Then compare them to those of Brian Peckford, who succeeded Moores.




To answer the question from the end of the clip, Clyde Wells resigned in December 1995 and he was replaced by Brian Tobin on January 26, 1996.

Tobin pulled pin in October, if memory serves.

Will Danny go in January or October?

- srbp-

Exxon,Conoco quit Venezuela

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips wrote off multi-billion dollar investments in Venezuela today, rather than accept increasingly tough operating terms laid down by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

BBC is reporting Conoco's loss at US$4.5 billion.

Chevron, BP, Total SA and Statoil will continue to work in Venezuela. BBC is reporting that Statoil will be reducing its stake to 15% in a country where, As Associated Press reports, the companies will also face flat rate taxes of 50% and royalties of 33.3% on its minor equity position.

Petro-Canada had previously announced it was abandoning its projects in the South American country.

Under Chavez, Venezuela first raised royalty and tax rates, then later assumed majority control of all oil projects as part of a larger nationalization drive of "strategic" economic sectors. Chavez says those policies are ensuring that oil benefits Venezuelans instead of foreign corporations and governments.

Rising energy prices and Venezuela's huge oil deposits have strengthened his hand: The country's reserves are the largest in the Western Hemisphere and may eventually prove bigger than Saudi Arabia's if it continues certifying heavy oil deposits in the Orinoco River region.

For a commentary on developments in Venezuela, the Financial Times offers some insights.

-srbp-

Summer of Love, 2007: Day 2 Lower Churchill long shot

The State of Rhode Island and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will conduct an "analysis and assessment of a potential power purchase of up to 200 megawatts of electricity [by Rhode Island] by the year 2015".

The MOU institutes a two-phase process to explore a possible arrangement for the sale and purchase of power. The first part of the process is a six-month mutual assessment of the merits of long-term sale and purchase agreement, as well as the development of an action plan to address any technical, regulatory and statutory requirements of the transaction. Upon completion of Phase I, the parties may enter Phase 2 negotiations for a binding agreement on the sale and purchase of power.

Key to developing the Lower Churchill successfully would be long-term power purchase agreements that would insure creditors can recover investments in the project, which has been estimated to cost upwards of CDN $9.0 billion to complete.

Even if Rhode Island enters into a power purchase agreement the total involved is only 7% of the project's total estimated generating capacity. Rhode Island is also one of the farthest potential markets for Lower Churchill power.

No other power purchases or potential power purchases have been announced to date.

-srbp-

nottawa has a humorous take on the whole thing.

The real family jewels

It seems like centuries ago now, but in a previous life your humble e-scribbler spent a considerable period of time researching Soviet military and defence policy.

That's what happens when you have an interest in military affairs and you are in university in the early 1980s.

In 1985, yours truly finished an honours essay written for an undergraduate degree. The paper dealt with Soviet military doctrine as it existed in the early 1980s. The main idea: Soviet military doctrine focused on the importance of pre-emption as a means of ensuring victory in any major war against capitalism. Essentially, the Soviet military was aimed at winning a major war and would look to strike an overwhelming blow early in the conflict, including launching a pre-emptive attack.

The Soviet concept originated in the late 1950s and early 1960s. By the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet military had evolved a concept based on conventional military forces that was designed to win quickly and to forestall any use of nuclear weapons by NATO forces. All very trendy at the time as that stuff might have been, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s made the whole idea a matter of mouldering history.

Some stuff continued to be relevant. Like the concept of the operational manoeuvre group. Odd as it might seem, Memorial's Queen Elizabeth II Library subscribed to an obscure set of foreign documents translated by the US government.

Lo, in the pile of microfiche - yes, microfiche - were all the papers on OMGs originally published in Polish and in which a bunch of scholars in the United Kingdom had discovered a modern discussion of OMGs. Don't bother trying to figure out what an OMG is; let's just say it was important and there weren't too many people in Canada reading that stuff outside of National Defence. In fact, except for a couple of colleagues here in Newfoundland (since gone to greater things) there wasn't a soul here even aware they existed.

Or the reconnaissance-strike complex, which was adapted in a highly simplified and tactical form by one of the British divisions in the 1991 Gulf War.

Or the concept of the Revolution in Military Affairs. That one came back with force in the 1990s as western armies began to think about things their Soviet counterparts were discussing in the 1970s and early 1980s.

All this is in aid of a link to the latest release of documents by the Central Intelligence Agency. The collection comprises what were once highly classified assessments on a variety of political and military topics involving the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

Flipping through some of the documents is interesting in light of the public discussions some 20 years after they were originally circulated at Langley and in DC. The ideas contained in some of them formed the roots of concepts your scribe was dealing with.

Those documents also had a particular context that makes them valuable for understanding what was going on at the time they were published. Take for example, Soviet thought on future war, originally published in April 1962 and its companion, Soviet strategic doctrine for the start of war that was circulated in July of that year.

Those documents would have been fresh in the mind of a great many people at the uppermost levels of the American administration facing missiles in Cuba in October 1962.

While the "family jewels" series will likely garner the most attention from news media, the rest of the documents released today contain far more useful information.

Like those microfiche years ago, they just need someone to read them to find the real jewels hidden therein.

-srbp-

Ghost of Meech

While there's no doubt you can get more flies with honey than vinegar, this roads announcement in New Brunswick brings back memories of that province's change of heart on the Meech Lake Accord 17 years ago this month.

It seems there's something about the whiff of paving tar that stirs the hearts of New Brunswick politicians.

Does it work on voters?

-srbp-

And a player to be named later

The Liberals picked up Garth Turner earlier in the year.

Then there was Wajid Khan who went the other way.

Now the Connies get Joe Comuzzi.

What's next?

Red Rover, Red Rover send Fabian over?

Hey Casey, ya wanna swing a red bat for a change?

Undoubtedly, to be followed by: "Blue Rover, Blue Rover, send [insert the appropriate name here.]"

-srbp-

The Summer of Love, 2007: Day One

In Labrador:

The provincial government announces a go-it-alone strategy for the Trans-Labrador Highway. [Turns out there was no signed agreement. As for Connie promises, well, people are starting to figure out what those are worth. Invites for this little show apparently didn't go out until late last week.]

Then, the official sod turning of the Mealy Mountain Auditorium.

Then sod-turning for a new long-term care home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

-srbp-

The Summer of Love, Tobin style

The year: 1998.

The Premier: Brian Tobin.

The political plan: Flood the province with optimism and cash on the Lower Churchill. Drop the writ for an election in September/October after only two years in office.

The specifics:

March 9 - series of announcements on Churchill Falls negotiations, framework for talks, chief negotiator, a joint announcement with Lucien Bouchard on the talks, and the text of Tobin's remarks.

June 18 - environmental contract

June 23 - environmental contracts

June 26 - engineering contracts

June 29 - environmental contracts

June 30 - engineering contracts

July 3 - environmental contracts

July 14 - environmental contracts

July 24 - environmental contracts

July 31 - engineering contract

August 4 - engineering and environmental contracts

August 7 - seismic testing notice (extended repeatedly during August)

What spending announcements will mark the Summer of Love, Danny Williams-style, now that we are in full election mode?

-srbp-

Capex decline in NL higher than previously forecast: RBC

RBC Economics is predicting that Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in economic growth in 2007 but drop to the bottom of the provincial pile in 2008.

That's not really news. RBC has been saying it consistently for the past few months. Just like everyone else, including the provincial government.

The real story - as in March of this year - is that the province will be the only one in the country to experience a drop in capital investment.

On top of that the latest figures show RBC has increased their forecast capex drop for NL. it's closer to 10% now, compared to about 7.5% in March.

That's all about the absence of major construction projects in the province, like Hebron and Hibernia South. Last year's drop in capex was only about 2.5%.

Anyone wondering why the Premier is sending a positive message to potential investors after years of slagging? Take a closer look at the RBC figures. They forecast an economic situation no Premier could tolerate, especially when the means of getting out of the decline are entirely in your hands to implement.

Things can change and the tone sent by the Premier at last week's NOIA conference might just help that turn-around.

-srbp-

Why the double standard?

Deputy Premier Tom Rideout told CBC News that the House of Assembly didn't put Chief Justice Green's "Rules" in place because there were issues that needed to be sorted out.

Rideout confirmed the Bond Papers' story from Thursday, even though he initially said it was poppycock.

But...

Rideout, meanwhile, said that while the new rules are not yet law, they will be followed anyway — at least within the PC caucus.

Members were sent an advisory to live by Green's recommendations concerning donations and discretionary spending.

If the Tories can be ordered to live by The Rules within their own caucus, why weren't The Rules just put in place?

Partisan game?

Suck and blow at the same time?

Rideout's explanation doesn't make sense.

-srbp-